Loading...
2006 - August 21 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 21 August 2006 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Imboden, and Steiner None. STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Mari Burke, Recording Secretary INRE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. INRE: CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) THERE WERE NO MINUTES A V AILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING. IN RE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS: (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2561-05, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4100-06 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0123-06 - MIKE'S PLACE (MIKE SHUSTER) A request to establish a Used Car Sales business (no service facilities) within an existing commercial structure, upgrading site improvements including landscaping, parking and signage. The project also includes a request for an adjustment to reduce the required front and side yard setback in a portion of the site from 10 feet to eight feet. The site is located at 1138 West Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the prOVISions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 _ Conversion of Small Structures). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 34-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2561-05, Design Review Committee No. 4031-05, and Administrative Adjustment No. 0123-06. A project overview was provided by Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox during which she highlighted: Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 . This will be a used car sales business with no service facilities. . The site will be upgraded as much as possible to bring it into conformance with current zoning requirements; specifically in the areas oflandscaping and signage. . The color of the existing building will be subdued. . Curbing and parking will also be brought up to current Code. Chair Bonina asked what the capacity is for the number of cars on site. Planner Fox responded there is a limitation of 14 cars maximum for the exterior of the building. Additional cars can be stored inside the building without creating Water Quality issues. Commissioner Steiner asked if there is an expectation to stripe the parking lot for customer parking and if 14 vehicles included customer vehicles? Planner Fox responded that there will be parking striped for 4 customer vehicles leaving only 10 spaces for displaying vehicles. Chair Bonina asked if the requirement of 4 parking spaces was dictated by the size of the building. Planner Fox responded that it is based on a factor of indoor and outdoor vehicle display and the City square footage requirement. Commissioner Bilodeau asked Staff to review what types of advertising would be permitted. Planner Fox indicated the signs that will be removed as well as the limitations of the Zoning Code. A summary of the applicant's current intent for signage was also provided. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if there are any restrictions on pennant type flags that are typically strung across parking lots. Planner Fox responded she is not familiar with that section of the Code; however, her opinion is temporary usage may be permitted and it would be up to Code Enforcement to enforce it. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry added that in the list of prohibited signs there are many types of this style advertising listed. Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification to the statement in Condition #13 (Page 5) where it states "should the applicant want to increase the number of cars by 15 or more". Planner Fox agreed that grammatically it could be revised to state the increase would be to 15 cars or more and she added the applicant would be required to work with Water Quality to satisfy their requirements. Chair Bonina asked if the light standards on the site today would be modified or if they will remain the height they are currently and if any type of banner or flag would be allowed on the light standards. Planner Fox indicated Condition #6, the second sentence, of the Resolution addresses this where it refers to all other signage (temporary or of a permanent nature) shall be removed. Planner Fox also noted that the Design Review Committee added an additional condition to ensure the freestanding sign includes the street address. The applicant, Mike Shuster, reiterated points made by Planner Fox and stated "I want to use the lot and building for high end cars. I want to be able to lock them up at night and Page 2 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 pull them out in the daytime. The fact that I can only have 8 or 9 cars there is not a big deal." Mr. Shuster added that he did not see it as a problem to make the changes requested. Chair Bonina asked if there was any intent to elevate any of the vehicles for display. Mr. Shuster asked if he would be held to his response? Chair Bonina responded affirmatively. Mr. Shuster stated "now, no, because I can't get any expensive cars up on lifts like that." Chair Bonina asked if there are any hoists in the existing building and if so, if they would remain. Mr. Shuster responded there are 2 and he will leave them in the ground; however, he will decapitate them so they won't be functional. No public comment was provided on this item. Recognizing that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - Conversion of Small Structures), Commissioner Bilodeau made a motion to approve the recommended action, recognizing the change to Condition #13 as discussed, adopting Resolution No. PC 34-06 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2561-05, Design Review Committee No. 4031-05, and Administrative Adjustment No. 0123-06. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None None MOTION CARRIED. (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2577-06 - GLAVAS RECREATION ROOM A proposal to allow for the installation of additional plumbing facilities (toilet and sink) in association with an existing recreation room attached to the rear portion of a detached garage. The site is located at 100 I East Everett Place. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1- Existing Facilities). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 33-06 approving Conditional Use Permit 2577-06. A project overview was provided by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry during which she highlighted that prior to the issuance of building permits the property owner must record a covenant stipulating that the garage, the recreation room, storage rooms, bathroom, etc. will not be used, rented, sold or leased as an additional dwelling unit on the site. This covenant document must be approved in form and recorded by the County. Page 3 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 Chair Bonina asked Staff to explain the recourse in the event there is a violation and the structure is occupied as a dwelling. Ms. Roseberry responded that the first steps would be through the code enforcement process. They would contact the property owner by mail requesting they cease the action by a given date. Ifthis remedy failed there would be a request made to the Planning Commission to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. Beyond these actions the matter would be referred to the City Attorney's office. Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney added that the action taken by the City Attorney's office would be to file a criminal complaint and the City could also file civil and revocation actions. Chair Bonina asked if the site had already been built out? Ms. Roseberry responded the petition walls are already in place; however, they are new. Further, there would not be an addition to the garage; they would just be building out the bathroom facility. Chair Bonina asked if air conditioning and heating are proposed? Ms. Roseberry did not know. Commissioner Steiner asked what was meant by "legalize" in the Project Description. Ms. Roseberry responded it usually means something has been done without permits and the applicant has come forward to obtain the necessary permits. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the required covered parking is 2 spaces. Ms. Roseberry responded it would be 2 spaces for R-l. Commissioner Bilodeau stated with the proposed partition wall it appears the garage door is only approximately 15'-16' wide and asked ifthis left adequate garage parking. Ms. Roseberry responded the requirement is for an interior space of20'x20' and that is what is available. The applicant, David Glavas stated: . He resides at this address with his wife and stepchildren. . The garage will be widened with a wall going in across the back. This would make the garage interior 20'x20'. . Heating and air conditioning will be installed to make the facility habitable in the summer and winter. . His stepson has cerebral palsy and will use this facility to entertain his friends and have some sense of independence. No public comment was provided on this item. Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1- Existing Facilities), Chair Bonina recommended adoption of Resolution No. PC 33-06 approving Conditional Use Permit 2577-06. SECOND: Commissioner Steiner Page 4 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None None MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Glavas asked if they would be contacted regarding the covenant or if they needed to initiate the action. Ms. Roseberry responded the Project Planner would contact them. (4) ZONE CHANGE 1237-06, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2578-06 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1778-06 - SANTIAGO CREEK ORANGE MOBILE HOME PARK A proposal to expand the Santiago Creek Orange Mobile Home Park by incorporating the approximate 0.5-acre parcel within the Park boundaries and improving the 0.5-acre parcel for 6 new manufactured residences. The site is located at 692 N. Adele Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1778-06 was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 35-06 recommending to the City Council approval of Negative Declaration No. 1778-06, Zone Change 1237-06, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2578-06. Senior Planner Chris Carnes provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Bonina asked if this request was for a modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit for the larger development or if this was a separate Conditional Use Permit unique to the other. Planner Carnes responded this was a separate request for incorporating this property into the mobile home project. Chair Bonina asked Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz if the Commission would be afoul of any legal issue by creating a second Conditional Use Permit versus modifying the original permit. Mr. Sheatz responded, "no". Mr. Bill Cathcart represented the applicant and thanked Staff for the many months they have worked on the project. Further Mr. Cathcart stated: . He believes this is a good project for several reasons: (1) It takes a piece of property that is not on the highest economic doles for the City from the property tax standpoint. (2) It helps with affordable housing in the City of Orange. (3) The recreational vehicle storage is to be used by the residents only, it is not for privately subscribed recreational vehicle storage. Page 5 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 . He had an issue with Condition #12 that would give pedestrian access to the Wanda Recreational Trail as from a land use perspective, the only place where that access could be granted would be in the pool area. For safety reasons that was not advisable. . There are no problems with any of the other Conditions. Commissioner Steiner asked for clarification that Mr. Cathcart had looked at the request of Staff (Condition #12) for an access gate and his judgment was that the pool area is the only area where the gate could be located. Mr. Cathcart confirmed. Commissioner Bilodeau asked where the secondary emergency vehicle access is located. Mr. Cathcart responded you would come down Kathleen and cross over any of the streets to Adele. There is only one way in and out of this project and that is on Adele; however, there is an emergency loop on the project site, which has been reviewed by the Fire Department. Commissioner Bilodeau asked ifit would be good for the community to put in an emergency gate for a secondary access through the creek. Mr. Cathcart indicated he didn't know if it would be possible as there is a pretty steep slope on the other side of the fence leading down to the concrete channel. Commissioner Imboden asked for clarification that the mobile homes would be single story. Mr. Cathcart responded affirmatively. Chair Bonina stated there is reference to a setback for each pad that is developed and asked if there are vehicles that would overlap the pad dimensions thus truncate the setback. Mr. Cathcart responded they do not intend to do that. Chair Bonina referred to Photos 4 and 7 and asked why a wrought iron fence was suggested along the property line. Mr. Cathcart stated he believed Staff suggested it for police security purposes. No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Bonina recommended adoption of Resolution No. PC 35-06 recommending to the City Council approval of Negative Declaration No. 1778-06, Zone Change 1237-06, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2578-06. The motion was modified to include omission of Condition #12, in the General section of the Resolution. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bilodeau Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None None MOTION CARRIED. Page 6 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 (5) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4095-06 RESIDENCE MIDSTOKKE A proposal to convert an existing attic into a new 484 sq. ft. bedroom and bathroom. The building is a contributing, 988 sq. ft., one-story 1887 Gabled Roof Cottage. The conversion includes new interior stairs and the installation of windows on each gable end of the roof. The site is located at 154 N. Shaffer Street, within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provIsIOns of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15331 (Class 31 - Projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny Design Review Committee No. 4095-06. Chair Bonina announced this was not a public hearing; however, input from the public would be accepted. A project overview consistent with the Staff Report was provided by Leslie Aranda Roseberry. Ms. Roseberry clarified there was a correction to be made on Page 2 of the Staff Report; specifically, the Applicant is not Craig Wheeler as indicated; Craig Wheeler is the Architect for the project. Ms. Roseberry stated the Planning Commission is being asked to review the project as the Old Towne Design Standards indicate that when there is an addition in excess of 20% to a contributing structure, that project requires approval of the Planning Commission. Although the project would normally go to the Design Review Committee first, it was recommended that the project be forwarded directly to the Planning Commission as the project Architect is a member of the City's Design Review Committee. Chair Bonina asked about the prior condition of the property and asked if there was a stairway to the second story prior to this remodel. Ms. Roseberry responded it would not have been original to the house. Chair Bonina also pointed out there was wall covering visible in the photographs, which may indicate the second floor was occupied prior to the remodel. Ms. Roseberry indicated she did not know when the photos were taken. Chair Bonina asked specifically what it was with the exterior of the house that presented an issue with maintaining the integrity from a historical perspective. Ms. Roseberry responded it was the existence of windows on the gabled end. Craig Wheeler, the project Architect introduced himself and forwarded photographs provided by the current homeowner. The photographs were taken of this home earlier and of similar homes in Orange that appear to have windows on the second floor. In addition to the photographs, the folders included letters from two neighbors Page 7 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 complimenting the homeowners on the project. Mr. Wheeler indicated the Staff Report frequently referred to the dwelling as a contributing 1887 Gabled Roof Cottage and he felt that designation was incorrect in several ways; specifically: (1) On Page 2 of Attachment #2 of the Staff Report, Line 14 states that the construction date is "c1887" but on Line 19 of that same page it mentions that the house was actually built in 1912. As was cited in the Orange Daily News the 1888 date may refer to an earlier internal portion of this structure or to a separate structure, which was demolished when this portion was built in 1912. Mr. Wheeler's opinion was that if this is true, it would appear that this house is one of the newest rather than the oldest home on the west side of that block of Shaffer. (2) While often referring to the house as "contributing", the Staff Report never mentions that it is currently clad completely in mid 20th century metal siding with an imitation wood grain. If the original siding had been covered in stucco Mr. Wheeler stated it would not be considered contributing. (3) It would appear that this home, like so many in Orange has suffered by what Mr. Wheeler referred to as "porch abuse" on a regular basis. He referred to the aerial topographic map of 1975, which was included in the Staff Report and shows a smaller porch, which occurs, on the southerly or left side of the front elevation. The Historic Resources Inventory (Attachment #2) shows a configuration much like today's. Mr. Wheeler pointed out that the current porch has little historic value in that: (a) The current handrails and pickets are modern dimensional lumber. (b) The posts, unlike the simple continuous square posts shown in the inventory photo are now constructed of modern dimensional Ix6 boxed out members above the railing with a larger boxed out section below. (c) The inventory photo shows a small roof overhang at the porch, which is no longer there. One can still see evidence of this overhang on the home's metal siding at each side of the porch roof. (d) The roof framing of the porch seems to be a mixed bag of modern and historic lumber sizes suggesting that the porch roof was reconstructed at some point using recycled lumber. (e) It would appear that the only historic elements visible on the home today are the door and window trim and perhaps the fascias and barge boards; but even the door and window trim (although probably original) are now set flush with the metal siding channel that surrounds the trim. This makes the original trim seem to almost appear to be painted on the surface rather than raised against the background siding. (f) The home as it exists today has one startling feature that is not mentioned in the Staff Report: it has no attic vents. While there is one small attic vent on the rear elevation, which mayor may not be original, there are none of the decorative and necessary gable vents that are found on virtually all gabled roofed homes in Old Towne Orange. Page 8 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 In Mr. Wheeler's opmlOn, the Staff Report's recommendation that the addition be constructed to the rear of the residence rather than converting the attic into living space would have a far more detrimental effect on the structure than the current solution. Mr. Wheeler stated: . The three new windows (and proposed roof window) do far less damage to whatever historic fabric remains then would an addition to the rear. . The massing would change from a cottage to a cottage with an obvious major addition. . The traditional service porch would probably loose all historic meaning with the addition of new living space behind it. . More of the landscaped surface of Orange would be replaced with hard surface materials. . None of the drawings he prepared include any work to be done to the front porch landing, stairs and railings. In fact, Mr. Wheeler's drawings call for the existing front porch to remain. . It was his understanding the latest round of front porch abuse was undertaken with permits by a previous owner of the property. . The 1975 aerial map shows a rear structure that very closely matches the size and location of the current one. It appears this addition was done prior to 1975. A copy ofa letter from a former owner indicating that the size and occupancy is the same as it was in the '70's was provided to the Commission. . The current owners did not concur with the Staff recommendation to remove the unpermitted, converted living unit as mentioned on Page 5 ofthe Staff Report. In conclusion, Mr. Wheeler indicated that the impacts to the structure due to the addition of the new live and dead loads of the second floor will be the subject of analysis in the next phase of the project. Further, if any changes, which will be visible on the exterior, are necessary, the drawings will be resubmitted to Planning. Chair Bonina asked if it was Mr. Wheeler's understanding that the remodel that was already completed did not require any permits. Mr. Wheeler responded that it was his understanding the remodel was done without permits; however, it certainly required them. Chair Bonina asked if there was a reason the permits were not obtained. Mr. Wheeler responded it was a misunderstanding and the owners (who were present) are very apologetic. Commissioner Imboden discussed the discrepancy with the dates of construction and asked Mr. Wheeler if he had looked at the property, as there are clearly construction differences that would be obvious. Mr. Wheeler responded, "so much of it is now hidden that it is hard to say; certainly it's old, the dimensional lumber inside is historic. I come down more on the 1912 side than on the earlier side." Commissioner Imboden asked him to share how he came to this conclusion. Mr. Wheeler responded the window proportions are more of what is seen after the turn of the century. Commissioner Imboden pointed out that Mr. Wheeler had already indicated the windows had been replaced and asked about the structure itself. Mr. Wheeler stated that nothing he saw would help him to Page 9 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 make a determination and the original windows of the house are still there except for the three new windows on the second floor. Commission Imboden stated he thought the new windows did not meet the egress requirements for a sleeping room. Mr. Wheeler agreed and indicated two changes would be made: (1) Convert one of the windows to a legal egress window by making it a casement that would still appear to a double hung. (2) Add a roof window on the rear plane of the gable roof to meet the light and air requirements. Commissioner Imboden asked since there has been so much discussion generated by City Staff that this was (and traditionally has been) a single story residence if they had explored putting in dormer windows to the rear so as to not change the visible elevations to the side. Mr. Wheeler responded he wasn't involved with the project when it was originally done and he is proposing to make as few changes as possible. Further, it was his opinion it would be hard to get new dormers in the back because there is a central gable that houses the master bedroom so they would need to be off to the side. Mr. Wheeler added that they would certainly give it a try if the Commission preferred that solution. Commissioner Imboden asked if there are any changes to the porch being proposed. Mr. Wheeler responded that contrary to the Staff Report they are proposing to leave it as it is now. Commissioner Imboden asked if there is any evidence that the changes represent anything that was there historically. Mr. Wheeler referred back to the aerial photo where the original porch appeared smaller and in a different position. Commission Imboden stated that typically the work done at the Design Review Committee level with this type of project is to ensure compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards and also within the Orange Municipal Code. It also provides for a line of demarcation. Mr. Wheeler agreed that there hasn't been demarcation done and added that he didn't know how they could do one due to the nature of the work that has already been done i.e. there wasn't an addition made to the volume of the house; the only real visible change to the exterior was the addition of the three windows and the proposed addition of the roof window. Commissioner Imboden asked if the front doors (which don't appear to be permissible in Old Towne) and the asphalt driveway, have been addressed in this project. Mr. Wheeler stated he has not addressed those two items thus far in the project. Mr. Jeff Frankel. OTPA introduced himself to the newest Commissioner, Scott Steiner and familiarized him with the charter of OTPA. Mr. Frankel stated: . They were surprised City Staff didn't issue a Stop Work order on the project when they became aware of the illegal construction activity. Page 10 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 . This is a very unique historic resource being the only pre 1900 example of this style remaining in the district. . He believes they should stick with the Inventory date. . They fully concur with Staffs review and recommendations. . This project does not meet the Old Towne Design Standards or the Secretary ofInterior Standards and it is not exempt from local CEQA guidelines. . They also share the opinion that the windows placed in the gable should be removed and the space restored back to an attic. . A more sympathetic solution and one that meets the Standards to construct additional living space to the rear ofthe home as recommended by Staff is more appropriate. . A concern of the OTPA that is rather disturbing is the perception that if you have a controversial project you only have to hire a DRC member as your architect and the project will receive approval. There really needs to be a policy in place to address and discourage this practice. At the very minimum, any project a DRC member brings forward should meet the Standards. . There are many homes in the District that are sided with alternate materials and they are still considered contributing. . The previous owner removed the porch about three years ago. The realtor that listed the property built the existing porch. In closing Mr. Frankel strongly encouraged the Commission to deny this project, per Staff recommendations. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Frankel if the windows were removed and used in the back if that would be an acceptable option from an OTPA perspective or if there would still be an issue with the second story. Mr. Frankel responded that the style, design and profile of the windows are inappropriate for the style of home. Further, if it met Code and the features were not visible from the street that would be a better alternative. Ms. Janet Crenshaw. OTPA stated she used to live on Shaffer Street so she knows this house well. She rejected the argument that if the structure had been altered slightly it is no longer historical. She cited examples in town where changes had been made and the dwellings were still considered historical. She agreed with all the Staff findings regarding the attic addition and added that any restoration, rebuilding or reconstruction should be done with permission from the proper City departments so problems of this nature could be avoided. Mr. Wheeler responded to the public input by stating it seemed pretty clear according to the historical survey that it's more likely 1912 than 1887 and he didn't know anything about the condition of the wood siding underneath the metal siding. Looking further at the drawings he thought it would be very difficult to do dormer windows in the rear as there is not much room and the only way to do it would be to somehow remove the rear gable, which is part of the original fabric of the house. He couldn't see any way to meet the light, air and egress requirements other than by having the windows on the gable side. Page II of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August21,2006 Chair Bonina asked Mr. Wheeler to clarify that his position was the introduction of a dormer in the back was not practical. Mr. Wheeler confirmed. Commissioner Bilodeau asked about a page in the packet of materials that appeared to be a building permit issued May 2, 2005 to build the porch. Mr. Wheeler responded that he was told that was the permit given to a previous owner to demolish and rebuild the porch. Commissioner Bilodeau noted there were four (4) conditions (although they were not all legible) and he asked Mr. Wheeler if the conditions were all met, to his knowledge. Mr. Wheeler responded they weren't legible to him either and he therefore couldn't comment. Commissioner Imboden asked if they were proposing a pop up window on the rear elevation and asked if it would be possible to do something like and gain the egress requirement. Mr. Wheeler responded it could certainly be done for light and air but based on the configuration of the rear roof it may not be possible to get the sill height. He added that it might be possible over the stairs but you wouldn't be able to access it. In an attempt to find a way to permit the work while still meeting the necessary requirements, Commissioner Imboden asked if a wooden screening device over the windows (as shown in one of the examples in the booklet provided) could be used? Mr. Wheeler responded he would explore some sort of shutter-like device. Chair Bonina asked for Mr. Frankel's perspective on Commissioner Imboden's comment. Mr. Frankel responded he hasn't seen the booklet. When the photo was shown and Commissioner Imboden explained how he envisioned it, Mr. Frankel stated he was sure it would be fine. Commissioner Steiner asked Mr. Frankel for clarification that his concern was that what was traditionally a single story home would still appear as a single story home and if the suggestion proposed by Commissioner Imboden would adequately address that. Mr. Frankel replied, "That would suggest it is still a single story house and that the devices are basically vents for the attic." Chair Bonina commented that the suggestion made by Commissioner Imboden might be a solution. Commissioner Imboden stated it is problematic to use the photographs of other properties to justify the current project and he commented on each of the examples. In closing Commissioner Imboden commented that he was very concerned that more research hadn't been done for the proposals brought forward i.e. it certainly it should not be difficult to look under this house or elsewhere to determine if it is 1887 or 1912. He stressed it is essential to know the date to be able to understand if the proposed changes are feasible. He seconded the comments made by others regarding the non-contributing siding not impacting the status of the home and stated this is a national registered property. He was troubled that changes are being made without a line of demarcation. He agreed there is something to be said for utilizing space within the existing bulk and mass rather than adding to the house; requested resolution to the driveway and the front door, and a review of the Standards to have this project brought into greater compliance. Page 12 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 Commissioner Steiner echoed the comments of Commissioner Imboden and expressed a degree of concern with respect to the claim that if a house has been altered in the past, it has lost its historical character. Chair Bonina asked Staff if the project did move forward at some point how would the permits be secured for the portion already built. Ms. Roseberry reviewed the process required. Commissioner Imboden stated that the process as defined by Ms. Roseberry raised additional issues i.e. in order for this project to move forward there most likely would be structural changes required i.e. shirring at the first level of the house. Commissioner Imboden cited further examples and illustrated to the homeowners some of the other issues they may confront. Chair Bonina stated he wasn't necessarily comfortable with the drastic recommendations of Staff; however, he wasn't prepared to move forward with an approval as the project was presented. Chair recommended a continuance of the project incorporating some of the suggestions made by Commissioner Imboden. The property owner indicated they did nothing to the rear unit other than painting and cleanup and asked if there was any way they could get it approved so they could rent it out while they worked on the front structure? Ms. Roseberry responded that this accessory second unit is non-compliant in two areas: it is definitely less than the required 450 square feet and an additional parking space must be provided. Staff was unable to obtain evidence there were building permits issued for this second unit and indicated if the homeowner could produce the permits or proof this was a legal second unit, it would not be an issue. Furthermore Ms. Roseberry indicated there is most certainly an opportunity to have a second unit on the sight and she reviewed the necessary requirements. Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz interjected that this request was not noticed as part of the application. Commissioner Imboden asked for confirmation from Staff that this project is before the Commission as a Design Review Committee item due to the special nature of the application and that it also would have come to the Commission due to the addition being in excess of20%. Ms. Roseberry responded affirmatively. Commissioner Imboden asked if noticing had been done. Ms. Roseberry responded it would not have been noticed because it would have been a Design Review Committee item forwarded with a recommendation to the Planning Commission and therefore it is not considered a public hearing. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to continue the project giving the applicant an opportunity to further investigate ways to bring the project into greater compliance with the Standards while: (I) maintaining the single story nature of the home and trying to meet the Code Page 13 of 14 Pages Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2006 requirements on the rear elevations (2) City Staff addresses the door and the driveway (3) a determination can be made as to what is required structurally Commissioner Steiner offered a second and commented that Mr. Wheeler indicated in some ways the Staff Report contained inaccuracies with respect to comments made regarding rebuilding the porch, etc. and to the extent there could be agreement as to what is being proposed with regard to the facts it would be beneficial. Chair Bonina noted the recommendation of Staffreferences the removal of the accessory second unit and restoration to a garage and asked if this would be problematic for the Commission in terms of continuing the project. Ms. Roseberry responded unless they propose a second unit that meets the City Standards or they can provide proof of permits for the second unit, it would have to be removed. Chair Bonina stated when they come back with their application, the secondary unit would have to be addressed. Ms. Roseberry concurred. Chair Bonina thanked and offered congratulations to Commissioner Imboden for crafting a solution that could be a win/win for all parties. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None None Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn the meeting to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, September 6, 2006. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Bilodeau, Imboden, Steiner None None None MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:55 p.m. Page 14 of 14 Pages